If I combine Master of Cruelties and Party Crasher with Grusilda, Monster Masher's ability, how would combat work on opponent's turns? Would the combined creature only be able to attack if the opponent doesn't assign other attackers?
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Silverbordered cards are outside the scope of normal Magic and the CR, and you will have to ask Mark Rosewater as the Un-Rules Manager himself for a definite answer.
However, the CR are equipped to handle a vast variety of scenarios, inlcuding how to handle simultaneous actions by multiple players. Players would go about their decisions in APNAP order, so first the active player would make all his/her choices for which creatures to attack with, and then the other players in turn order would do the same. The attacker declaration must be legal after all players made their choices. However, all restrictions and as many requirements as possible must be obeyed. So if something required the Master Crasher to attack each turn if able, and there are no other requirements, then the only legal attacker declaration would be the Master Crasher as the only attacker. With the Master Crasher's restriction in place though, only a requirement for it to attack, or no attacker declaration on the other players' part, would make its attack legal.
That's only my take on this, with silverbordered cards it's up to your playgroup really on how to rule such situations.
Silverbordered cards are outside the scope of normal Magic and the CR, and you will have to ask Mark Rosewater as the Un-Rules Manager himself for a definite answer.
However, the CR are equipped to handle a vast variety of scenarios, inlcuding how to handle simultaneous actions by multiple players. Players would go about their decisions in APNAP order, so first the active player would make all his/her choices for which creatures to attack with, and then the other players in turn order would do the same. The attacker declaration must be legal after all players made their choices. However, all restrictions and as many requirements as possible must be obeyed. So if something required the Master Crasher to attack each turn if able, and there are no other requirements, then the only legal attacker declaration would be the Master Crasher as the only attacker. With the Master Crasher's restriction in place though, only a requirement for it to attack, or no attacker declaration on the other players' part, would make its attack legal.
That's only my take on this, with silverbordered cards it's up to your playgroup really on how to rule such situations.
So, if I understood correctly, I would not be able to attack with Master Crasher if the opponent on that turn attacks with other creatures?
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
In essence, yes, that's how I would interpret the rules of combat of actual Magic as outlined in the CR. However, as I said, if there is a requirement to attack with the Master Crasher (like if it is enchanted with Bloodshed Fever), and obeying this requirement would increase the total number of requirements obeyed, then any legal attacker declaration has to include the Master Crasher, so the active player cannot declare other attackers.
Without such a requirement, though, declaring the Master Crasher in addition to the active players attackers would make the proposed set of attackers illegal, causing the action of declaring attackers to be reset, and forcing a new (different) set of attackers to be chosen. Since the active player chooses his attackers first, he can choose the same set of attackers as before, leaving you to make the differing decision, which means, not declaring the Master Crasher as attacker, which would then result in a legal set of attackers. So the active player can force you to not attack with the Master Crasher simply by declaring an attacker himself.
In essence, yes, that's how I would interpret the rules of combat of actual Magic as outlined in the CR. However, as I said, if there is a requirement to attack with the Master Crasher (like if it is enchanted with Bloodshed Fever), and obeying this requirement would increase the total number of requirements obeyed, then any legal attacker declaration has to include the Master Crasher, so the active player cannot declare other attackers.
Without such a requirement, though, declaring the Master Crasher in addition to the active players attackers would make the proposed set of attackers illegal, causing the action of declaring attackers to be reset, and forcing a new (different) set of attackers to be chosen. Since the active player chooses his attackers first, he can choose the same set of attackers as before, leaving you to make the differing decision, which means, not declaring the Master Crasher as attacker, which would then result in a legal set of attackers. So the active player can force you to not attack with the Master Crasher simply by declaring an attacker himself.
Hm, that means it would actually be even more broken then I expected. Master Crasher with an "attacks each turn" clause would basically lock all my opponents out of attacking during their own turn. Awesome! That was something I totally didn't expect! Thanks!
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
In essence, yes, that's how I would interpret the rules of combat of actual Magic as outlined in the CR. However, as I said, if there is a requirement to attack with the Master Crasher (like if it is enchanted with Bloodshed Fever), and obeying this requirement would increase the total number of requirements obeyed, then any legal attacker declaration has to include the Master Crasher, so the active player cannot declare other attackers.
Without such a requirement, though, declaring the Master Crasher in addition to the active players attackers would make the proposed set of attackers illegal, causing the action of declaring attackers to be reset, and forcing a new (different) set of attackers to be chosen. Since the active player chooses his attackers first, he can choose the same set of attackers as before, leaving you to make the differing decision, which means, not declaring the Master Crasher as attacker, which would then result in a legal set of attackers. So the active player can force you to not attack with the Master Crasher simply by declaring an attacker himself.
Hm, that means it would actually be even more broken then I expected. Master Crasher with an "attacks each turn" clause would basically lock all my opponents out of attacking during their own turn. Awesome! That was something I totally didn't expect! Thanks!
It would also need vigilance or a way to untap each turn. Tapped creatures don't get to be declared as attackers.
In essence, yes, that's how I would interpret the rules of combat of actual Magic as outlined in the CR. However, as I said, if there is a requirement to attack with the Master Crasher (like if it is enchanted with Bloodshed Fever), and obeying this requirement would increase the total number of requirements obeyed, then any legal attacker declaration has to include the Master Crasher, so the active player cannot declare other attackers.
Without such a requirement, though, declaring the Master Crasher in addition to the active players attackers would make the proposed set of attackers illegal, causing the action of declaring attackers to be reset, and forcing a new (different) set of attackers to be chosen. Since the active player chooses his attackers first, he can choose the same set of attackers as before, leaving you to make the differing decision, which means, not declaring the Master Crasher as attacker, which would then result in a legal set of attackers. So the active player can force you to not attack with the Master Crasher simply by declaring an attacker himself.
Hm, that means it would actually be even more broken then I expected. Master Crasher with an "attacks each turn" clause would basically lock all my opponents out of attacking during their own turn. Awesome! That was something I totally didn't expect! Thanks!
It would also need vigilance or a way to untap each turn. Tapped creatures don't get to be declared as attackers.
Thanks for pointing that out! This seems like a pretty interesting project to do .
My YouTube Channel: The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
However, the CR are equipped to handle a vast variety of scenarios, inlcuding how to handle simultaneous actions by multiple players. Players would go about their decisions in APNAP order, so first the active player would make all his/her choices for which creatures to attack with, and then the other players in turn order would do the same. The attacker declaration must be legal after all players made their choices. However, all restrictions and as many requirements as possible must be obeyed. So if something required the Master Crasher to attack each turn if able, and there are no other requirements, then the only legal attacker declaration would be the Master Crasher as the only attacker. With the Master Crasher's restriction in place though, only a requirement for it to attack, or no attacker declaration on the other players' part, would make its attack legal.
That's only my take on this, with silverbordered cards it's up to your playgroup really on how to rule such situations.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
So, if I understood correctly, I would not be able to attack with Master Crasher if the opponent on that turn attacks with other creatures?
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Without such a requirement, though, declaring the Master Crasher in addition to the active players attackers would make the proposed set of attackers illegal, causing the action of declaring attackers to be reset, and forcing a new (different) set of attackers to be chosen. Since the active player chooses his attackers first, he can choose the same set of attackers as before, leaving you to make the differing decision, which means, not declaring the Master Crasher as attacker, which would then result in a legal set of attackers. So the active player can force you to not attack with the Master Crasher simply by declaring an attacker himself.
Former Rules Advisor
"Everything's better with pirates." - Lodge
(The Gamers: Dorkness Rising)
"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
(Girl Genius - Fairy Tale Theater Break - Cinderella, end of volume 8)
Hm, that means it would actually be even more broken then I expected. Master Crasher with an "attacks each turn" clause would basically lock all my opponents out of attacking during their own turn. Awesome! That was something I totally didn't expect! Thanks!
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Thanks for pointing that out! This seems like a pretty interesting project to do .
BGU [Primer] Sidisi, Brood Tyrant BGU | BG [Primer] Mazirek, Kraul Death Priest BG | G [Primer] Polukranos, World Eater G
My YouTube Channel:
The Commander Tavern - a channel I just started where I'll post deck techs and gameplays. Please support by checking it out. Maybe you'll like its content and subscribe! Thanks!